Veteran actress Joyce Dewitt has been hit with two charges of driving under the influence following her arrest in her native California earlier this year.
The 60 year old, best known for her role as Janet Wood on hit 1980s TV show Three's Company, was arrested in El Segundo on July 4 after driving past a traffic barricade.
The actress was taken into police custody after reportedly failing field sobriety tests and was later released on $5,000 bail.
A complaint filed on Tuesday by the Los Angeles County District Attorney shows she had been driving with a blood alcohol level of .15 - twice the state's legal limit.
She has been charged with one count of driving under the influence and one count of driving while having a blood alcohol content of .08 or higher,
Source
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
These Doughnuts the Los Angeles Police Don’t Like
As of late, many residents of the Crenshaw-Leimert Park area have been able to sleep a little more soundly on Saturday nights. Their sleep aid: the increased presence of the Los Angeles Police Department and the California Highway Patrol.
Earlier this year, cruising and street racing on Crenshaw Boulevard not only awakened many residents with the sounds of screeching tires, racing engines and loud music, but it kept late-night commuters confined at various points on the thoroughfare.
In the Bay Area of Northern California, the phenomenon of young people engaging in this activity is known as “side shows” and
“yokin’ ”. Officials and residents in the Crenshaw-Leimert area have their own names for it: nuisance and illegal.
Resources to combat the problem were increased in July, according to Renee Bevel, a crime intelligence analyst with LAPD’s South Bureau. The plan included officers from the CHP, LAPD senior lead officers, motorcycle officers and regular patrol units.
Residents say they were able to set their clocks by when the nuisances would occur: usually late Saturday nights/early Sunday mornings, mostly between 2 and 4 a.m. Signs of the previous night’s activities would be visible by dawn: several fresh, black tire marks along the boulevard from where street racers would do “donuts” — spin their cars around in circles — or burn rubber from a stationary position, usually at an intersection.
Stuart H., a resident who lives about two blocks from Crenshaw Boulevard and 54th Street, says he remembers being awakened routinely between 1:30 and 3:30 a.m. on Sunday mornings to the sound of screeching tires.
“We could actually smell the rubber burning,” said Stuart, whose last name was withheld for safety reasons. “From where I live, I could hear the voices of people on the street yelling and screaming on Crenshaw. It was crazy.”
Additional resources were made available to the LAPD to free up officers for this issue prior to meetings with concerned residents, according to LAPD Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese.
Since the suppression detail went into effect, Stuart says that his “nights are very quiet. I think that just their (the LAPD’s) presence has stopped the (activity.) We’ve been able to sleep through the night.”
The LAPD’s strategy for addressing the issue has been focused mainly on visibility, enforcement and education.
At a meeting with residents at the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza in August, Albanese stressed that the police department has to be very careful in its response to the cruisers and street racers.
Albanese admitted that, prior to the suppression plan, police officers had been “part of the problem by not engaging in simple traffic stops.”
While cruising is not illegal, there have been times when traffic has been impacted.
“We have to be mindful of the crime being committed,” Albanese said. “The Constitution gives people the right to gather, to assemble.”
Residents of the corridor say that the issue is not the gathering that is the problem but everything that comes along with it: loud noise, the holding up of traffic, cruising at dangerous speed levels, driving the wrong way on the thoroughfare, and the donuts in the middle of the street.
The enforcement aspect of the LAPD’s suppression plan has resulted in some significant crime numbers, according to the city attorney’s office.
Sharee L. Sanders is the deputy city attorney assigned to the Crenshaw Area Project, which encompasses the area where gatherings took place.
Sanders said that during the time period between March through Aug. 8, 823 vehicle citations have been issued and 96 cars were impounded; six stolen vehicles have been recovered and 47 arrests have been made for outstanding warrants.
There also were 28 DUI (Driving Under the Influence) arrests; six felony arrests have been made; one gun has been removed; and five juveniles under 18 have been arrested for being in violation of the 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.
During the last two weekends of August, there were 232 citations issued; three felony and 32 misdemeanor arrests made; 17 people were arrested for DUI, and 20 cars were impounded, Sanders said.
The plan is also part of the crime abatement strategy of the Urban League’s Neighborhoods At Work initiative. The initiative is a five-year project to increase the quality of life in the 70-block perimeter that borders Vernon Avenue on the north; Arlington Avenue on the east; Slauson Avenue to the south; and Crenshaw Boulevard on the west, extending to Hillcrest Boulevard to an extent. As part of the crime abatement strategy, the Urban League requested resources for this area from the LAPD, the city attorney’s office and the CHP.
CHP, working in conjunction with LAPD, patrols the area from about 8 p.m. Saturday to 6 a.m. Sunday, said to Sgt. Lee Martin of CHP.
The city attorney’s office handles all of the misdemeanor vehicular charges that occur such as unsafe driving, speeding, hanging out of doors, on top of cars and racing.
Sanders, who says she grew up in the area and remembers the phenomenon of cruising from her younger days, says the foremost concern is for safety.
“A lot of students and young people are involved in the cruising,” she says. “Although a lot of what happens in the neighborhood is not done necessarily by … youth who live in this neighborhood, it is still young people.”
The suppression plan along Crenshaw Boulevard is scheduled to continue until at least Oct. 5, which is when an overall assessment of the plan’s success will be made.
Source
Earlier this year, cruising and street racing on Crenshaw Boulevard not only awakened many residents with the sounds of screeching tires, racing engines and loud music, but it kept late-night commuters confined at various points on the thoroughfare.
In the Bay Area of Northern California, the phenomenon of young people engaging in this activity is known as “side shows” and
“yokin’ ”. Officials and residents in the Crenshaw-Leimert area have their own names for it: nuisance and illegal.
Resources to combat the problem were increased in July, according to Renee Bevel, a crime intelligence analyst with LAPD’s South Bureau. The plan included officers from the CHP, LAPD senior lead officers, motorcycle officers and regular patrol units.
Residents say they were able to set their clocks by when the nuisances would occur: usually late Saturday nights/early Sunday mornings, mostly between 2 and 4 a.m. Signs of the previous night’s activities would be visible by dawn: several fresh, black tire marks along the boulevard from where street racers would do “donuts” — spin their cars around in circles — or burn rubber from a stationary position, usually at an intersection.
Stuart H., a resident who lives about two blocks from Crenshaw Boulevard and 54th Street, says he remembers being awakened routinely between 1:30 and 3:30 a.m. on Sunday mornings to the sound of screeching tires.
“We could actually smell the rubber burning,” said Stuart, whose last name was withheld for safety reasons. “From where I live, I could hear the voices of people on the street yelling and screaming on Crenshaw. It was crazy.”
Additional resources were made available to the LAPD to free up officers for this issue prior to meetings with concerned residents, according to LAPD Deputy Chief Kirk Albanese.
Since the suppression detail went into effect, Stuart says that his “nights are very quiet. I think that just their (the LAPD’s) presence has stopped the (activity.) We’ve been able to sleep through the night.”
The LAPD’s strategy for addressing the issue has been focused mainly on visibility, enforcement and education.
At a meeting with residents at the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza in August, Albanese stressed that the police department has to be very careful in its response to the cruisers and street racers.
Albanese admitted that, prior to the suppression plan, police officers had been “part of the problem by not engaging in simple traffic stops.”
While cruising is not illegal, there have been times when traffic has been impacted.
“We have to be mindful of the crime being committed,” Albanese said. “The Constitution gives people the right to gather, to assemble.”
Residents of the corridor say that the issue is not the gathering that is the problem but everything that comes along with it: loud noise, the holding up of traffic, cruising at dangerous speed levels, driving the wrong way on the thoroughfare, and the donuts in the middle of the street.
The enforcement aspect of the LAPD’s suppression plan has resulted in some significant crime numbers, according to the city attorney’s office.
Sharee L. Sanders is the deputy city attorney assigned to the Crenshaw Area Project, which encompasses the area where gatherings took place.
Sanders said that during the time period between March through Aug. 8, 823 vehicle citations have been issued and 96 cars were impounded; six stolen vehicles have been recovered and 47 arrests have been made for outstanding warrants.
There also were 28 DUI (Driving Under the Influence) arrests; six felony arrests have been made; one gun has been removed; and five juveniles under 18 have been arrested for being in violation of the 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew.
During the last two weekends of August, there were 232 citations issued; three felony and 32 misdemeanor arrests made; 17 people were arrested for DUI, and 20 cars were impounded, Sanders said.
The plan is also part of the crime abatement strategy of the Urban League’s Neighborhoods At Work initiative. The initiative is a five-year project to increase the quality of life in the 70-block perimeter that borders Vernon Avenue on the north; Arlington Avenue on the east; Slauson Avenue to the south; and Crenshaw Boulevard on the west, extending to Hillcrest Boulevard to an extent. As part of the crime abatement strategy, the Urban League requested resources for this area from the LAPD, the city attorney’s office and the CHP.
CHP, working in conjunction with LAPD, patrols the area from about 8 p.m. Saturday to 6 a.m. Sunday, said to Sgt. Lee Martin of CHP.
The city attorney’s office handles all of the misdemeanor vehicular charges that occur such as unsafe driving, speeding, hanging out of doors, on top of cars and racing.
Sanders, who says she grew up in the area and remembers the phenomenon of cruising from her younger days, says the foremost concern is for safety.
“A lot of students and young people are involved in the cruising,” she says. “Although a lot of what happens in the neighborhood is not done necessarily by … youth who live in this neighborhood, it is still young people.”
The suppression plan along Crenshaw Boulevard is scheduled to continue until at least Oct. 5, which is when an overall assessment of the plan’s success will be made.
Source
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Drunken driving suit delayed third time
Bogged down by last-minute deposition requests, a flurry of 11th-hour motions and the sluggish pace at which civil litigation generally moves, the auto negligence lawsuit against William "Billy" Nichols Jr. has been delayed for a third time.
Although the trial was scheduled to begin today, a circuit judge chose to postpone it until January rather than flirt with the possibility of appellate admonishment down the road.
"This case isn't going to be reversed because of procedural debates," Circuit Judge Brian Lambert said recently as lawyers on both sides squabbled over matters like the timely meeting of discovery deadlines and the unexpected announcement of new witnesses.
While legal counsel seemed worn down, if somewhat unsurprised by the judge's order to push back the trial date, no one looked more defeated than the plaintiff, Adrian "Stretch" Cummings.
"I'm broken-hearted," said the Vietnam War veteran, his tall and lanky frame hunched in disappointment. "I want some final closure on this and they won't give it to me. I just want justice."
It's been nearly five years since that fateful Nov. 26, 2004, morning when Cummings' wife, Nancy, 55, and daughter Holly, 25, were killed.
Nichols' Ford F-250 pickup crossed over the center lane and smashed into their Ford Tempo, crushing the two women to death.
Nichols' blood-alcohol content, taken two hours after the crash, registered at 0.103 and 0.104; the point at which a driver is presumed to be impaired is 0.08.
Paramedics recalled a near-hysterical Nichols in the aftermath. But if the wreck left Nichols - the sole survivor - dazed, the verdict at his criminal trial left a community stunned.
A Marion County jury acquitted the Ocala Water Spots Surf Ski and Skate Shop owner on two counts of DUI manslaughter. A circuit judge dropped two additional counts of vehicular homicide.
It was a controversial acquittal that reverberated across town in the form of angry letters to the editor, furious blog posts and general disbelief in the criminal justice system.
But there was chance yet for Cummings, the 61-year-old widower who stretches more than 6 feet tall, to find solace in the justice system.
A year after the deaths, in November 2005, Cummings filed a civil complaint against Nichols, alleging the business owner was negligent in causing the accident by being intoxicated and failing to maintain control of his vehicle.
Seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, the lawsuit wended its way through the civil docket, going through at least one judge change, and reams of electronically filed paperwork.
Almost immediately after Nichols' October 2007 acquittal on his criminal charges, his civil defense attorney sought a change of venue in the civil trial due to pretrial publicity.
On Sept. 4, Judge Lambert finally heard that motion and denied it by raising the inevitable O.J. Simpson analogy.
"Where did they try [Simpson's] civil case? They didn't go to San Francisco, did they?" the judge asked defense attorney Michael Donsky.
Los Angeles-area juries heard the criminal and civil cases against the football star.
Lambert will allow for prospective jurors to be individually questioned concerning their knowledge of the two-year-old criminal case.
No mention of Nichols' arrest or his subsequent criminal prosecution will be allowed at his civil trial.
But it will be a while until jury selection even begins.
Over the next several months, attorneys will have the opportunity to depose new witnesses, such as Earle Traynam, an economist whom plaintiff's attorney Scott Parks noticed as a witness just days before the discovery cutoff date. It was a last-minute filing that incurred the wrath of both the judge and opposing counsel.
"We wanted [the trial] over," defense attorney Donsky said. "There's not nearly much more we had to do."
Parks will call on Traynam to assess the potential future earnings of Nancy Cummings. She and her daughter were nurses at Leesburg Regional Medical Center.
The mother-daughter pair were on their to work when the crash occurred in Ocklawaha early in the morning.
Another reason for the trial's continuance was Parks' delayed request to depose two defense witnesses: Stephen Curry and Leonard Masten,
"He waits to tell me he needs two of my experts for depositions when they've been available forever," Donsky told the judge with a sigh earlier this month.
Those witnesses - a pharmacologist and toxicologist, respectively - played a prominent role in Nichols' defense during the criminal trial.
According to a former jury member, one of the main reasons for Nichols' acquittal was the introduction at trial of a medical phenomenon known as delayed gastric emptying. Nichols, now 45, supposedly experienced this medical condition at the time of the crash.
That was the "big, major thing" that led Josephine Eckert and her fellow jurors to reach their not-guilty verdict.
That theory helped debunk the notion that Nichols, a one-time champion barefoot skier, was actually intoxicated, and therefore criminally negligent, when he was behind the wheel in November 2004.
Nichols consumed at least five beers and five ounces of Crown Royal whiskey on Thanksgiving, which was the day prior to the accident. He also ate a large greasy meal, the contents of which, the experts said, decreased Nichols' gastric emptying time.
Masten testified that the combination of the alcohol and food, followed shortly thereafter by sleep, had caused Nichols' pyloric valve - which processes alcohol into the bloodstream - to close and not reopen until after the crash.
That scientific theory, though largely scorned by the public, convinced the jury. Eckert said the decision still weighs heavily on her.
"I hope I never have to make a decision like that again," she said. "I get a real sick feeling when I see [Nichols'] business when I pass it."
In the civil action, Nichols' defense lawyer asserts his client was not at fault in the accident, that it was a mechanical failure on his Ford truck and the road's improper maintenance that caused Nichols to swerve into the oncoming lane and lose control of his vehicle.
Adrian Cummings isn't buying it. The accident would have been preventable "except that [Nichols] was drunk," he said late last year.
Cummings, who lives in the Ocala National Forest and occasionally speaks before the Marion County Victim Impact Panel, declined to sit for an extended interview, but has remained a fixture in court during the many hearings.
Nichols, who is not required to be present, has been noticeably absent.
"I haven't missed a date yet. I have an obligation to my family," Cummings said earlier this month. "It's hard and it hurts but if it [the lawsuit] makes one person think before they get behind the wheel of a car, it hurts less," he added.
The war veteran, who met and married his wife upon returning from Vietnam, was left widowed and daughterless after the accident, but has a son who lives nearby who is in his mid-30s. The father expresses hope that come January, a jury will see his side.
"I hope after this verdict, I can say the Pledge of Allegiance in Marion County," he said.
Source
Although the trial was scheduled to begin today, a circuit judge chose to postpone it until January rather than flirt with the possibility of appellate admonishment down the road.
"This case isn't going to be reversed because of procedural debates," Circuit Judge Brian Lambert said recently as lawyers on both sides squabbled over matters like the timely meeting of discovery deadlines and the unexpected announcement of new witnesses.
While legal counsel seemed worn down, if somewhat unsurprised by the judge's order to push back the trial date, no one looked more defeated than the plaintiff, Adrian "Stretch" Cummings.
"I'm broken-hearted," said the Vietnam War veteran, his tall and lanky frame hunched in disappointment. "I want some final closure on this and they won't give it to me. I just want justice."
It's been nearly five years since that fateful Nov. 26, 2004, morning when Cummings' wife, Nancy, 55, and daughter Holly, 25, were killed.
Nichols' Ford F-250 pickup crossed over the center lane and smashed into their Ford Tempo, crushing the two women to death.
Nichols' blood-alcohol content, taken two hours after the crash, registered at 0.103 and 0.104; the point at which a driver is presumed to be impaired is 0.08.
Paramedics recalled a near-hysterical Nichols in the aftermath. But if the wreck left Nichols - the sole survivor - dazed, the verdict at his criminal trial left a community stunned.
A Marion County jury acquitted the Ocala Water Spots Surf Ski and Skate Shop owner on two counts of DUI manslaughter. A circuit judge dropped two additional counts of vehicular homicide.
It was a controversial acquittal that reverberated across town in the form of angry letters to the editor, furious blog posts and general disbelief in the criminal justice system.
But there was chance yet for Cummings, the 61-year-old widower who stretches more than 6 feet tall, to find solace in the justice system.
A year after the deaths, in November 2005, Cummings filed a civil complaint against Nichols, alleging the business owner was negligent in causing the accident by being intoxicated and failing to maintain control of his vehicle.
Seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, the lawsuit wended its way through the civil docket, going through at least one judge change, and reams of electronically filed paperwork.
Almost immediately after Nichols' October 2007 acquittal on his criminal charges, his civil defense attorney sought a change of venue in the civil trial due to pretrial publicity.
On Sept. 4, Judge Lambert finally heard that motion and denied it by raising the inevitable O.J. Simpson analogy.
"Where did they try [Simpson's] civil case? They didn't go to San Francisco, did they?" the judge asked defense attorney Michael Donsky.
Los Angeles-area juries heard the criminal and civil cases against the football star.
Lambert will allow for prospective jurors to be individually questioned concerning their knowledge of the two-year-old criminal case.
No mention of Nichols' arrest or his subsequent criminal prosecution will be allowed at his civil trial.
But it will be a while until jury selection even begins.
Over the next several months, attorneys will have the opportunity to depose new witnesses, such as Earle Traynam, an economist whom plaintiff's attorney Scott Parks noticed as a witness just days before the discovery cutoff date. It was a last-minute filing that incurred the wrath of both the judge and opposing counsel.
"We wanted [the trial] over," defense attorney Donsky said. "There's not nearly much more we had to do."
Parks will call on Traynam to assess the potential future earnings of Nancy Cummings. She and her daughter were nurses at Leesburg Regional Medical Center.
The mother-daughter pair were on their to work when the crash occurred in Ocklawaha early in the morning.
Another reason for the trial's continuance was Parks' delayed request to depose two defense witnesses: Stephen Curry and Leonard Masten,
"He waits to tell me he needs two of my experts for depositions when they've been available forever," Donsky told the judge with a sigh earlier this month.
Those witnesses - a pharmacologist and toxicologist, respectively - played a prominent role in Nichols' defense during the criminal trial.
According to a former jury member, one of the main reasons for Nichols' acquittal was the introduction at trial of a medical phenomenon known as delayed gastric emptying. Nichols, now 45, supposedly experienced this medical condition at the time of the crash.
That was the "big, major thing" that led Josephine Eckert and her fellow jurors to reach their not-guilty verdict.
That theory helped debunk the notion that Nichols, a one-time champion barefoot skier, was actually intoxicated, and therefore criminally negligent, when he was behind the wheel in November 2004.
Nichols consumed at least five beers and five ounces of Crown Royal whiskey on Thanksgiving, which was the day prior to the accident. He also ate a large greasy meal, the contents of which, the experts said, decreased Nichols' gastric emptying time.
Masten testified that the combination of the alcohol and food, followed shortly thereafter by sleep, had caused Nichols' pyloric valve - which processes alcohol into the bloodstream - to close and not reopen until after the crash.
That scientific theory, though largely scorned by the public, convinced the jury. Eckert said the decision still weighs heavily on her.
"I hope I never have to make a decision like that again," she said. "I get a real sick feeling when I see [Nichols'] business when I pass it."
In the civil action, Nichols' defense lawyer asserts his client was not at fault in the accident, that it was a mechanical failure on his Ford truck and the road's improper maintenance that caused Nichols to swerve into the oncoming lane and lose control of his vehicle.
Adrian Cummings isn't buying it. The accident would have been preventable "except that [Nichols] was drunk," he said late last year.
Cummings, who lives in the Ocala National Forest and occasionally speaks before the Marion County Victim Impact Panel, declined to sit for an extended interview, but has remained a fixture in court during the many hearings.
Nichols, who is not required to be present, has been noticeably absent.
"I haven't missed a date yet. I have an obligation to my family," Cummings said earlier this month. "It's hard and it hurts but if it [the lawsuit] makes one person think before they get behind the wheel of a car, it hurts less," he added.
The war veteran, who met and married his wife upon returning from Vietnam, was left widowed and daughterless after the accident, but has a son who lives nearby who is in his mid-30s. The father expresses hope that come January, a jury will see his side.
"I hope after this verdict, I can say the Pledge of Allegiance in Marion County," he said.
Source
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Reporter Exposes California DUI Lawyer Practices
An investigative reporter for California
Lawyer magazine, a professional publication for all members of the California
State Bar, has recently delved into the practices of California DUI attorneys.
In the magazine's cover article, titled "The DUI Defense Bar," reporter Tom
McNichol took a hard and long-overdue look at the good, the bad and the ugly
among DUI lawyers:
At one end of the spectrum are the specialists who've spent much of
their professional lives mastering arcane technical issues such as
blood and breath partition ratios, microbial contamination in
urinalysis, and the perils of retrograde extrapolation in chemical
tests. These attorneys typically charge anywhere from $3,500 to
$10,000 to defend a first offender, not including the expert witness
fees or lab tests that may be required. Top expert witnesses with
national reputations can easily push the total cost closer to
$20,000.
At the other end of the spectrum are cut-rate practitioners with no
particular expertise, who charge as little as $1,000 per case. These
include "dump truck" lawyers, who sign up as many clients as possible
and then dump them all on the guilty-plea docket; and "escort"
lawyers, who escort clients up to the judge like a high-paid call
girl, plead them guilty, and then disappear with the money.
These DUI mills typically offer a lowball rate to clients, and they
tend to give commensurate service. One California attorney who
advertises his "cheap DUI defense" widely on the Internet pitches
prospective clients: "We do the same thing over and over again. There
is simply no reason to spend thousands of dollars on your defense. We
charge about half of the going rate."...
McNichol then took a look at the other end of the professional scale, focusing
on Los Angeles DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor, known nationally as the "Dean of
DUI Attorneys" and author of the standard text on the subject, Drunk Driving
Defense :
By punching enough holes in the prosecution's case, a good DUI lawyer
can, if not exonerate a client, then at least knock the charge down
to what's known in the trade as a "wet reckless"--an alcohol-related
reckless driving offense.
This is where defendants often get from their lawyers what they pay
for. At the Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor, Inc.--where attorneys
devoted exclusively to DUI cases charge top dollar--blood and urine
samples are routinely reanalyzed; breathalyzer maintenance,
calibration, and administration are investigated; and sometimes the
scene of an arrest is revisited. Taylor's firm also boasts a support
staff that includes a forensic toxicologist who once did DUI testing
for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's crime lab, a former hearing
officer for the DMV, and a former police officer who was on the Santa
Ana department's DUI task force. That's a far cry from the firms
where lawyers, by their own admission, "do the same thing over and
over again."
Source
Lawyer magazine, a professional publication for all members of the California
State Bar, has recently delved into the practices of California DUI attorneys.
In the magazine's cover article, titled "The DUI Defense Bar," reporter Tom
McNichol took a hard and long-overdue look at the good, the bad and the ugly
among DUI lawyers:
At one end of the spectrum are the specialists who've spent much of
their professional lives mastering arcane technical issues such as
blood and breath partition ratios, microbial contamination in
urinalysis, and the perils of retrograde extrapolation in chemical
tests. These attorneys typically charge anywhere from $3,500 to
$10,000 to defend a first offender, not including the expert witness
fees or lab tests that may be required. Top expert witnesses with
national reputations can easily push the total cost closer to
$20,000.
At the other end of the spectrum are cut-rate practitioners with no
particular expertise, who charge as little as $1,000 per case. These
include "dump truck" lawyers, who sign up as many clients as possible
and then dump them all on the guilty-plea docket; and "escort"
lawyers, who escort clients up to the judge like a high-paid call
girl, plead them guilty, and then disappear with the money.
These DUI mills typically offer a lowball rate to clients, and they
tend to give commensurate service. One California attorney who
advertises his "cheap DUI defense" widely on the Internet pitches
prospective clients: "We do the same thing over and over again. There
is simply no reason to spend thousands of dollars on your defense. We
charge about half of the going rate."...
McNichol then took a look at the other end of the professional scale, focusing
on Los Angeles DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor, known nationally as the "Dean of
DUI Attorneys" and author of the standard text on the subject, Drunk Driving
Defense :
By punching enough holes in the prosecution's case, a good DUI lawyer
can, if not exonerate a client, then at least knock the charge down
to what's known in the trade as a "wet reckless"--an alcohol-related
reckless driving offense.
This is where defendants often get from their lawyers what they pay
for. At the Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor, Inc.--where attorneys
devoted exclusively to DUI cases charge top dollar--blood and urine
samples are routinely reanalyzed; breathalyzer maintenance,
calibration, and administration are investigated; and sometimes the
scene of an arrest is revisited. Taylor's firm also boasts a support
staff that includes a forensic toxicologist who once did DUI testing
for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's crime lab, a former hearing
officer for the DMV, and a former police officer who was on the Santa
Ana department's DUI task force. That's a far cry from the firms
where lawyers, by their own admission, "do the same thing over and
over again."
Source
Thursday, October 15, 2009
California magazine questions DUI attorney practices
The May 2009 issue of California Lawyer Magazine featured an article from Tom McNichol calling DUI defense, "the specialty people love to hate - but dare not drive without." The article takes a close and, at times, critical look at the practice of DUI defense.
McNichol interviewed prominent DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor. Taylor is known for his outspoken press releases defending the rights of accused drunk drivers. He has lead the charge to change many DUI laws, recently focused on gender discrimination and marijuana DUI in press releases these past few months.
Taylor points out the double-standard of DUI defense: snub your nose at it until you need it. Many people assume all DUI offenders are given a fair trial but found guilty because they are indeed guilty. Taylor says defendants are often shocked to face the reality of a court that is not kind to accused DUI offenders.
McNichol points out this hard treatment of DUI offenders is largely due to the extreme statistics of death, injury and general danger DUI drivers cause. It is in response to these things, according to McNichol and many state lawmakers, that laws and punishments must be tougher.
New laws bring more business to DUI attorneys, the article points out. The laws also bring a host of small lawsuits to the court. A primary current concern is the Supreme Court ruling that forensic scientists must be present in court when evidence is presented. This means a lab technician who analyzed a chemical BAC test should be called to testify. Attorneys, judges and court officials are all concerned about how this will bog down the courts.
McNichol discusses the reasons why the DUI specialty is attractive to defense lawyers. He cites the fact that it is largely recession proof, and it may even be more profitable in an economic downturn when drinking tends to go up. DUI defendants are generally wealthier than most criminal defense clients, meaning they will likely pay larger fees and pay them on time.
While McNichol addresses these common trends in DUI defense, he points out there are attorneys who handle cases very differently. The one end, according to McNichols, includes the, "specialists who've spent much of their professional lives mastering" DUI defense. These attorneys tend to be highly technical and rather expensive.
McNichol calls the other group, "DUI mills." His research claims these attorneys charge very little for their practice and usually settle with a guilty plea. McNichol is largely critical of these attorneys, calling them "escort lawyers" who push guilty pleas and take the client's money. These attorneys often send letters to individuals on the list of police DUI reports.
McNichol is unforgiving in the portrait he paints of these less-costly DUI attorneys. He fails to address the key issue, though, for many clients who approach the "DUI mills:" DUIs are expensive. And they get more expensive each year. With interlock requirements, fines and penalties, impound fees and more, DUIs may cost up to $10,000 before attorney fees.
DUI penalties are and have long been a regressive approach to a criminal, social and political issue. Those persons who are least able to afford alternate transportation are also least able to afford high-end defense. For many people, low-cost DUI attorneys are the only form of defense they can afford. Going in without an attorney is a worse option.
Source
McNichol interviewed prominent DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor. Taylor is known for his outspoken press releases defending the rights of accused drunk drivers. He has lead the charge to change many DUI laws, recently focused on gender discrimination and marijuana DUI in press releases these past few months.
Taylor points out the double-standard of DUI defense: snub your nose at it until you need it. Many people assume all DUI offenders are given a fair trial but found guilty because they are indeed guilty. Taylor says defendants are often shocked to face the reality of a court that is not kind to accused DUI offenders.
McNichol points out this hard treatment of DUI offenders is largely due to the extreme statistics of death, injury and general danger DUI drivers cause. It is in response to these things, according to McNichol and many state lawmakers, that laws and punishments must be tougher.
New laws bring more business to DUI attorneys, the article points out. The laws also bring a host of small lawsuits to the court. A primary current concern is the Supreme Court ruling that forensic scientists must be present in court when evidence is presented. This means a lab technician who analyzed a chemical BAC test should be called to testify. Attorneys, judges and court officials are all concerned about how this will bog down the courts.
McNichol discusses the reasons why the DUI specialty is attractive to defense lawyers. He cites the fact that it is largely recession proof, and it may even be more profitable in an economic downturn when drinking tends to go up. DUI defendants are generally wealthier than most criminal defense clients, meaning they will likely pay larger fees and pay them on time.
While McNichol addresses these common trends in DUI defense, he points out there are attorneys who handle cases very differently. The one end, according to McNichols, includes the, "specialists who've spent much of their professional lives mastering" DUI defense. These attorneys tend to be highly technical and rather expensive.
McNichol calls the other group, "DUI mills." His research claims these attorneys charge very little for their practice and usually settle with a guilty plea. McNichol is largely critical of these attorneys, calling them "escort lawyers" who push guilty pleas and take the client's money. These attorneys often send letters to individuals on the list of police DUI reports.
McNichol is unforgiving in the portrait he paints of these less-costly DUI attorneys. He fails to address the key issue, though, for many clients who approach the "DUI mills:" DUIs are expensive. And they get more expensive each year. With interlock requirements, fines and penalties, impound fees and more, DUIs may cost up to $10,000 before attorney fees.
DUI penalties are and have long been a regressive approach to a criminal, social and political issue. Those persons who are least able to afford alternate transportation are also least able to afford high-end defense. For many people, low-cost DUI attorneys are the only form of defense they can afford. Going in without an attorney is a worse option.
Source
Monday, September 28, 2009
Los Angeles DUI Attorneys -- Who cares?
It's a curiosity when the first question posed by a prospective client is, "Do I really need a Los Angeles DUI attorney?" Well, if you're the sort to do your own dentistry or set your own bones when you break them, I guess you don't. For the rest of us, however, a specialist's care in a specialized problem area is obviously and always a benefit. The Prosecutor has an army behind him in considering your DUI arrrest -- the arresting officers, the forensic criminalist who analyzed your blood or breath test evidence, the will of the People of the State of California, the agents of Mothers Against Drunk Driving -- and you have: you. The science of blood alcohol analysis, the requirements of probable cause for DUI arrest, the protocol and strategy of DMV administrative DUI Hearings, the pros and cons of the court, specific courtroom and assigned prosecutor -- these are all vagaries of which the layman has little or no knowledge and yet which can pose a important difference or threat in the resolution of your case.
Gold and Witham, Attorneys at Law, is comprised of Los Angeles DUI Attorneys exclusively devoted to the practice of drunk driving defense in Los Angeles and Orange County. Jeffrey Lewis Gold, Esq. is a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney and admittee to the Los Angeles Police Departmen with 25 years legal practice to his credit. Los Angeles DUI Lawyer Nigel Witham, Esq. has 23 years practice in criminal defense both here and in England. Retained experts Henry Greenberg (former Los Angeles Sheriff Department Criminalist) and Maro Sasaki (former DMV Administrative Hearing Officer) are retained to review all cases for their most pragmatic and producitve technical defenses. This kind of prosecutorial backrounded, long-experienced and common sense expertise is only available to a DUI defendant courtesty of a Los Angeles drunk driving law firm. Don't walk this one alone, folks.
Source
Gold and Witham, Attorneys at Law, is comprised of Los Angeles DUI Attorneys exclusively devoted to the practice of drunk driving defense in Los Angeles and Orange County. Jeffrey Lewis Gold, Esq. is a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney and admittee to the Los Angeles Police Departmen with 25 years legal practice to his credit. Los Angeles DUI Lawyer Nigel Witham, Esq. has 23 years practice in criminal defense both here and in England. Retained experts Henry Greenberg (former Los Angeles Sheriff Department Criminalist) and Maro Sasaki (former DMV Administrative Hearing Officer) are retained to review all cases for their most pragmatic and producitve technical defenses. This kind of prosecutorial backrounded, long-experienced and common sense expertise is only available to a DUI defendant courtesty of a Los Angeles drunk driving law firm. Don't walk this one alone, folks.
Source
Monday, September 14, 2009
No joy of text; Albuquerque bans driving while texting
A front page article in the July 24, 2009 Albuquerque Journal discusses “The High Price of Driving and Talking.” (Once I figure out how to do links, I’ll link to the article). Albuquerque is famed for its DWI checkpoints, but DWT checkpoints for Driving while talking or texting are on the horizon. Hollywood has glamorized bank robbers and serial killers. It is doubtful that there will be a movie called Natural Born Texters.
Considering all the hoopla about texting in the article, perhaps it might be time for a film, well a documentary at least.
The article lists the fees if a person takes his or her case to court. It can cost up to $185 for a first offense, but the article quotes City Public Safety Director Pete Dinelli. “Our goal is to send a very strong message to use a hands-free device…If it is your first offense we will dismiss the citation provided you brings in a hands-free device. But if it’s your third or fourth go-round, we are going to pop you pretty good.”
Unlike the ubiquitous red light violations, the “popping” will take place in Metropolitan Court before a judge as opposed to a city administrative hearing. An offender also has the option of community service.
Guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That means officers must show up in court for a trial before a judge in order to make the case. A defense attorney could ask for a belt tape of the alleged incident. An officer could miss a DWI third jury trial while stuck in a cell phone violation hearing, putting further strain on the system.
Independent studies need to be done that focuses on several factors. Is enforcement of cell phone violations done fairly? One member of a minority group indicated that he felt unfairly targeted. Are certain cars or certain drivers more likely to get “popped?” Do the economics really work or is there an inordinate impact on someone who can’t afford a hands-free phone? Is a cell phone ban really increasing public safety?
Los Angeles recently passed a cell phone while driving ban. In the movie, True Romance, a big drug deal was negotiated by Director “Lee Donwitz” while speeding in his BMW up the Pacific Coast Highway. Talking on a phone can be grounds for a stop. If it discourages drug deals, perhaps a cell phone ban could be a good thing.
Source
Considering all the hoopla about texting in the article, perhaps it might be time for a film, well a documentary at least.
The article lists the fees if a person takes his or her case to court. It can cost up to $185 for a first offense, but the article quotes City Public Safety Director Pete Dinelli. “Our goal is to send a very strong message to use a hands-free device…If it is your first offense we will dismiss the citation provided you brings in a hands-free device. But if it’s your third or fourth go-round, we are going to pop you pretty good.”
Unlike the ubiquitous red light violations, the “popping” will take place in Metropolitan Court before a judge as opposed to a city administrative hearing. An offender also has the option of community service.
Guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That means officers must show up in court for a trial before a judge in order to make the case. A defense attorney could ask for a belt tape of the alleged incident. An officer could miss a DWI third jury trial while stuck in a cell phone violation hearing, putting further strain on the system.
Independent studies need to be done that focuses on several factors. Is enforcement of cell phone violations done fairly? One member of a minority group indicated that he felt unfairly targeted. Are certain cars or certain drivers more likely to get “popped?” Do the economics really work or is there an inordinate impact on someone who can’t afford a hands-free phone? Is a cell phone ban really increasing public safety?
Los Angeles recently passed a cell phone while driving ban. In the movie, True Romance, a big drug deal was negotiated by Director “Lee Donwitz” while speeding in his BMW up the Pacific Coast Highway. Talking on a phone can be grounds for a stop. If it discourages drug deals, perhaps a cell phone ban could be a good thing.
Source
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
California DUI Lawyer Explains What to do if You're Stopped for a DUI
LONG BEACH, Calif., July 29 /PRNewswire/ -- Nationally-known California DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor, author of Drunk Driving Defense, offers this advice:
"What should I do if I'm stopped for suspicion of DUI?"
First, don't flunk the "attitude test": Be pleasant and cooperative with the officer. But that doesn't mean to do everything you're asked. For example, you're not required by law to take the DUI field sobriety tests, and frankly I'd advise you to decline them. In Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and other parts of California, you may be asked to take a DUI handheld breath test during the DUI investigation; again, you're not required by California law to take it and you should politely decline.
"Should I answer the officer's questions?"
Decline to answer potentially incriminating questions, such as "How much have you had to drink?" or "How do you feel?" Remember: whatever you say that can hurt you will be put in the officer's DUI report - and whatever will help you will be left out. A good answer is, "I would prefer not to answer any more questions until I can see an attorney."
"Should I take a breath or blood test?"
If you're offered a test after you're arrested for DUI, you should probably take it. If you refuse, the possible license suspension and jail time will be longer and a refusal can be used in evidence as an implied admission of intoxication. The blood test is potentially more accurate than the generally unreliable breathalyzer, so if you're confident that your blood-alcohol level is under .08%, take it.
"How serious are the consequences of a California DUI conviction?"
Initially, the possible legal consequences of a DUI conviction depend upon many factors, such as the blood-alcohol level, any prior DUI record, presence of children in the car, etc. Penalties include jail, fines, license suspension, DUI schools, probation and possibly more. But the indirect damage can be considerable: including a criminal record, increased car insurance, employment problems, professional licensing issues, security clearance -- even possible consequences in divorce or child custody cases.
"What is the most important thing for me to know if I'm arrested for DUI in California?"
DUI is the most difficult crime for an attorney to defend correctly, due to the complex criminal DUI laws and scientific blood-alcohol issues, as well as separate California DMV administrative hearings. Recognize that it's usually the unreliable breath machine that largely determines guilt or innocence. It's crucial that you retain a California DUI attorney with at least 10 years experience, preferably a lawyer who specializes in DUI defense exclusively in Los Angeles, Orange County or wherever you were arrested.
Source
"What should I do if I'm stopped for suspicion of DUI?"
First, don't flunk the "attitude test": Be pleasant and cooperative with the officer. But that doesn't mean to do everything you're asked. For example, you're not required by law to take the DUI field sobriety tests, and frankly I'd advise you to decline them. In Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and other parts of California, you may be asked to take a DUI handheld breath test during the DUI investigation; again, you're not required by California law to take it and you should politely decline.
"Should I answer the officer's questions?"
Decline to answer potentially incriminating questions, such as "How much have you had to drink?" or "How do you feel?" Remember: whatever you say that can hurt you will be put in the officer's DUI report - and whatever will help you will be left out. A good answer is, "I would prefer not to answer any more questions until I can see an attorney."
"Should I take a breath or blood test?"
If you're offered a test after you're arrested for DUI, you should probably take it. If you refuse, the possible license suspension and jail time will be longer and a refusal can be used in evidence as an implied admission of intoxication. The blood test is potentially more accurate than the generally unreliable breathalyzer, so if you're confident that your blood-alcohol level is under .08%, take it.
"How serious are the consequences of a California DUI conviction?"
Initially, the possible legal consequences of a DUI conviction depend upon many factors, such as the blood-alcohol level, any prior DUI record, presence of children in the car, etc. Penalties include jail, fines, license suspension, DUI schools, probation and possibly more. But the indirect damage can be considerable: including a criminal record, increased car insurance, employment problems, professional licensing issues, security clearance -- even possible consequences in divorce or child custody cases.
"What is the most important thing for me to know if I'm arrested for DUI in California?"
DUI is the most difficult crime for an attorney to defend correctly, due to the complex criminal DUI laws and scientific blood-alcohol issues, as well as separate California DMV administrative hearings. Recognize that it's usually the unreliable breath machine that largely determines guilt or innocence. It's crucial that you retain a California DUI attorney with at least 10 years experience, preferably a lawyer who specializes in DUI defense exclusively in Los Angeles, Orange County or wherever you were arrested.
Source
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Los Angeles Private Investigator Proves Child Neglect and Endangerment Issues Through Law Enforcement Intervention to Leverage Child Custody Disputes
Los Angeles, CA, July 29, 2009 --(PR.com)-- Increasingly, allegations of child neglect and endangerment are viewed as “child custody disputes” within the jurisdiction of family law courts. Accordingly, it is becoming more common for a parent to levy allegations of abuse and report such claims to the Department of Social Services to initiate a formal investigation.
Many concerned parents get a rude awakening when Child Protective Services’ reports turn up “Unfounded” results and they learn no further action will be taken. This can be a nightmare to any parent who has intimate knowledge of the abusive parent’s potential to harm the child.
In reality, most such cases are treated as “Child Custody Disputes” by family court. A contested child custody dispute can be a financially and emotionally frustrating endeavor. Many times the case can be reduced to legal theatrics by ambitious attorneys prolonging the legal agony for profit. Most cases will be invariably predicated on unsubstantiated facts and the implied consequences on the child. These cases will lack direct evidence to support the allegations to materially implicate the bad parent.
The child custody experts at Lead Investigation Group, Inc. specialize in handling such custody cases by introducing direct and relevant evidence. The agency consults and investigates complex custody cases private clients and Certified Family Law Specialist attorneys. The agency employs all its resources including use of law enforcement assistance when necessary to properly document and investigate criminal offenses (ie: DUI arrests, narcotics possession, domestic violence, or money laundering and financial crimes.) The investigations supplement the routine investigation conducted by the agency (ie: documentation of alcohol or drug dependency, relationship with or cohabitation with a new partner who is unfit, or through documentation of any pattern of behavior indicative of emotional abuse or neglect.) These efforts generate overwhelming evidence that would otherwise remain undiscovered.
In a recent case, Lead Investigation Group's Orange County private investigators documented a subject's alcohol intake during a weekend visitation with the minor child. The investigators noted the mother's impaired motor functions, as she drove to the babysitter's house to pick up the child. While transporting the child, the mother was detained and arrested for DUI by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The evidence of the mother's alcohol intake was presented by the investigators and a conviction for willfull child endangerment and a DUI was sustained. Accordingly, custody was turned over to the father of the child, as the mother was deemed a potential threat to the minor child.
Lead Investigation Group’s investigators are subject matter experts and testify to these findings and present legally admissible audio and video recorded evidence to bolster the case. The findings are usually the key to a favorable custody ruling or modification.
Source
Many concerned parents get a rude awakening when Child Protective Services’ reports turn up “Unfounded” results and they learn no further action will be taken. This can be a nightmare to any parent who has intimate knowledge of the abusive parent’s potential to harm the child.
In reality, most such cases are treated as “Child Custody Disputes” by family court. A contested child custody dispute can be a financially and emotionally frustrating endeavor. Many times the case can be reduced to legal theatrics by ambitious attorneys prolonging the legal agony for profit. Most cases will be invariably predicated on unsubstantiated facts and the implied consequences on the child. These cases will lack direct evidence to support the allegations to materially implicate the bad parent.
The child custody experts at Lead Investigation Group, Inc. specialize in handling such custody cases by introducing direct and relevant evidence. The agency consults and investigates complex custody cases private clients and Certified Family Law Specialist attorneys. The agency employs all its resources including use of law enforcement assistance when necessary to properly document and investigate criminal offenses (ie: DUI arrests, narcotics possession, domestic violence, or money laundering and financial crimes.) The investigations supplement the routine investigation conducted by the agency (ie: documentation of alcohol or drug dependency, relationship with or cohabitation with a new partner who is unfit, or through documentation of any pattern of behavior indicative of emotional abuse or neglect.) These efforts generate overwhelming evidence that would otherwise remain undiscovered.
In a recent case, Lead Investigation Group's Orange County private investigators documented a subject's alcohol intake during a weekend visitation with the minor child. The investigators noted the mother's impaired motor functions, as she drove to the babysitter's house to pick up the child. While transporting the child, the mother was detained and arrested for DUI by the Orange County Sheriff's Department. The evidence of the mother's alcohol intake was presented by the investigators and a conviction for willfull child endangerment and a DUI was sustained. Accordingly, custody was turned over to the father of the child, as the mother was deemed a potential threat to the minor child.
Lead Investigation Group’s investigators are subject matter experts and testify to these findings and present legally admissible audio and video recorded evidence to bolster the case. The findings are usually the key to a favorable custody ruling or modification.
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)